Zone1 Why do you need gods?

[ding]

Not sure that is a meaningful sentence. Since "existence is not predicate" as Kant noted in critique of Anselm's Ontological Argument, this sentence feels like it may be meaningless.

Of course it's a meaningful sentence. You don't understand the science of the creation of the universe from nothing. If you understood the science of the creation of the universe from nothing then you would understand that the physical laws of nature prove no "thing" created the universe. Because it is a fact that the creation of space and time followed the laws of nature. Which means the laws of nature existed before the creation of space and time. This isn't a philosophical argument. This is a science argument. When did Kant and Anselm make scientific arguments? Never.

 

[ding]

Your concept of a "rule" pre-existing the thing is interesting conjecture. But conjecture is all it is.

Incorrect. Again... You don't understand the science of the creation of the universe from nothing. If you understood the science of the creation of the universe from nothing then you would understand that the physical laws of nature prove no "thing" created the universe. Because it is a fact that the creation of space and time followed the laws of nature. Which means the laws of nature existed before the creation of space and time.

 

[jehanne1431]

You are actually quite wrong.

Evolutionist high priest Richard Dawkins says in his book - - - "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.” - - - - - - - - - - “the illusion of design and planning.” --- right. That’s not science, Richard… that’s agenda.

Evolution high priest, Stephen Gould (now deceased): “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”

Steven M. Stanley is an American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of Hawaii. He is best known for his empirical research documenting the evolutionary process of punctuated equilibrium in the fossil record. "The known fossil record," Stanley observes, "fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."

^^^ These two extremely highly esteemed evolutionists were compelled to come up with a new theory for how life evolved, because after decades of research and study they came to the conclusion there are no transitional fossils for which one can say are part of “gradual evolution.” Hence, they believe now in sudden major transformations somehow appearing, known as “punctuated equilibrium” or the monster theory. Isn’t that interesting. The top evolutionists in the world are telling another set of top evolutionists there is zero evidence for their gradual evolution theory in the fossil record, yet students in classrooms are forced to believe in it as fact.

 

[ding]

I will agree that "Spirit is no thing" in that I fail to believe it exists. Given that reality does exist (at least to this observer) will then have to assume that "spirit" is not part of this. It is a wish of the human mind and nothing more. It's wholly understandable. We are "self-aware" to an extreme extent so, of course, we fear "not existing". But some of us actually kind of look forward to that eventuality.

From the atheist's vantage point these beliefs exist because of evolutionary forces. But the reality is that even that argument confirms that spirituality offers a functional advantage over materialism (i.e. atheism). According to natural selection there are two main components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. So even natural selection confirms that spirituality is a behavior which leads to success. Otherwise, according to natural selection, it would have been abandoned long ago. As mankind has gained more and more knowledge of his natural surroundings his desire for spirituality has not diminished. In fact, the more materialistic we became the less satisfied we became.

 

[ding]

My experience is precisely why I am now an atheist.

That's on you. You missed the forest for the trees.

MLK said, "...We are never to think of God's power in terms of what he could conceivably do by the exercise of what we may call sheer omnipotence which crushes all obstacles in its path. We are always to think of God's power in terms of his purpose. If what he did by sheer omnipotence defeated his purpose, then, however startling and impressive, it would be an expression of weakness, not of power. Indeed, a good definition of power is "ability to achieve purpose. This applies to the power of a gun, or a drug, or an argument, or even a sermon! Does it achieve its end? Does it fulfill its purpose?

We must realize that God's power is not put forward to get certain things done, but to get them done in a certain way, and with certain results in the lives of those who do them. We can see this clearly in human illustrations. My purpose in doing a crossword puzzle is not to fill in certain words. I could fill them in easily by waiting for tomorrow morning's paper. Filling them in without the answers is harder but much more satisfying, for it calls out resourcefulness, ingenuity, and discipline which by the easier way would find no self expression.

 

[ding]

No, I said "nope" because your answer has nothing to do with the Euthyphro Dilemma. You should look it up and then respond.

I did. Their perception of God is the "garbage in" I spoke of. Yours is probably no better.

You probably can't even state a perception of God that isn't dripping with bias and wholly unreasonable. I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't believe in the God you conjured in your head either. I don't blame you for not believing in that God. I only blame you for not making an honest effort of seeing God in His best light and then looking for that God.

 

[BlackSand]

.

Pascal's Wager ... Until if and when He speaks to your heart.
If anyone wants to argue with you about your relationship with God ... Then tell them to take it up with Him.

Live in the Light ... Lead by Example
Righteous Judgement is what makes God Divine and People assholes.

Don't shit on His Blessings
Ask for Strength and Wisdom

.​

 

[ding]

So where did God come from?

The answer didn't change from the last three times I answered this question.

Eternal and unchanging. There's no other possible explanation.

 

[ding]

God = Existence?

How does "existence" make things with intent as you have indicated God made the universe?

It's not hard to do once you stop seeing God like a noun and start seeing God like a verb. Like I said before, it's the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

 

[ding]

So God is also a mind? So God is a "mind" and "existence"? Anything else?

God is no "thing." God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is a spirit. A spirit is no "thing." As a dialectical materialist you can't possibly relate to no "things." A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand your third dimension than you would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of your space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

 

[ding]

What is the physical feature of "mind stuff"? How does "mind stuff" make the physical world?

Everything is information. What is information? Information is incorporeal. It's no "thing."

 

[ding]

Where did God come from?

Just answer that question and the whole discussion goes away.

Where did God come from?

For the 5th time. God is eternal and unchanging. I don't see how it can be any other way.

 

[ding]

Maybe I do understand it but I have a different experience from you and that comes across as a threat to your beliefs.

That is not the intent.

Just because someone fails to believe in an invisible being that is important to YOU does not mean that they are doing something "wrong". It means they fail to see evidence for the invisible being that convinces you.

I don't feel threatened by your disbelief. If anything, you seem to be threatened by my beliefs. Feel free to think, say and do anything you want. You only will be harming yourself. I'm past all that.

But I honestly don't believe you know what it means to worship or why we do it. Prove me wrong.

 

[ding]

So is God the essence of "being-ness" that all mind-beings strive for? Is it the mind-being that becomes the mind-essence that then creates the mind-stuff that coalesce to become solids such that we can live within the mindstuff beingnessness?

We are free to worship money, pleasure, power and fame but none of that will satisfy us because we were made for more.

Given the tenor of your post it's pretty clear you worship yourself.

 

[ding]

What is mind-stuff? Please explain it's features so that I might analyze some of it. Thanks.

Anything which is incorporeal.

 

[ding]

If God is no thing but he's also "mind" then he's simultaneously no thing and some thing.

Consciousness without form.

 

[ding]

Unless you think "mind" is no thing. "Thoughts" are things. "Intellect" is a thing. "Intent" is a thing. "Will" is a thing. But you are saying God is no thing. That means He isn't even a "concept" since "concepts" are things.

You do understand what incorporeal means, right?

 

[ding]

Seems you are making a great argument that God does not exist. But I sense that is not what your argument is.

I'm not sure how you made that leap in logic but my beliefs sure do seem to be threatening you.

 

[ding]

Perhaps you can tell us what "mind" is such that it can simultaneously BE and NOT BE.

This is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued His creation with His attributes. Therefore, God is infinite logic, infinite truth, infinite intelligence, infinite wisdom, infinite knowledge, infinite love, infinite patience, infinite justice, infinite mercy, infinite kindness and infinite goodness. I am not saying God has those attributes. I am saying God is those attributes. The polar opposite of those attributes are not extant. They only exist as the negation of the attribute.

 

[ding]

Per whose definition? Sounds like you just made that one up.

Thermodynamics